Pristine Grace
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46

Thread: Hermeneutics

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by wildboar
    I am not at all familiar with Grudem's Systematic Theology, so I neither endorse nor condemn it. However, the introduction to it is on-line and contains a good concise overview of the relationship between Systematic, Biblical, and other theologies. It can be found at: http://www.seegod.org/systematic_theology.htm
    is this the way you are using the term "Biblical Theology"? if so i'm a little confused at your post that seemed to mix that with not viewing the Scriptures as having a single ultimate author, etc.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Two things:

    1) Here is a blurb about Terry's BH from American Vision: 'With the revival of preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy, Milton Terry's book once again is gaining an audience. Biblical Hermeneutics was the textbook of choice for most seminaries through the 1970s. Ironically, even dispensational schools used it. The book was kept in print by Zondervan, a dispensational publisher, for years. Coupled with Terry's Biblical Apocalyptics (nearly imposssible to find), this book lays the foundation for sound biblical interpretation.'

    And here is an actual quote from him:
    ‘The writer on Biblical Introduction examines the historical foundations and the canonical authority of the books of Scripture. The textual critic detects interpolations, emends false readings, and aims to give us the very words which the sacred writers used. The exegete takes up these words, and by means of the principles of hermeneutics, defines their meaning, elucidates the scope and plan of each writer, and brings forth the grammatico-historical sense of what each book contains. The expositor builds upon the labours both of critics and exegetes, and set forth in fuller form, and by ample illustration, the ideas, doctrines, and moral lessons of the Scriptures.

    ‘Hermeneutics, therefore, is both a science and an art. As a science, it enunciates principles, investigates the laws of thought and language, and classifies its facts and results. As an art, it teaches what application these principles should have, and establishes their soundness by showing their practical value in the elucidation of the more difficult scriptures. The hermeneutical art thus cultivates and establishes a valid exegetical procedure.’ (Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 19-20.)
    And...
    ‘The grammatical sense is to be always sought by a careful study and application of the well-established principles and rules of the language. A close attention to the meaning and relations of words, a care to note the course of thought, and to allow each case, mood, tense, and the position of each word, to contribute its part to the general whole, and a caution lest we assign to words and phrases a scope and conception foreign to the usus loquendi of the language—these are rules, which, if faithfully observed, will always serve to bring out the real import of any written document.

    The grammatico-historical sense is further developed by a study of the context and scope of an author’s work. The word context, as the etymology intimates (Latin, con, together, and textus, woven), denotes something that is woven together, and, applied to a written document, it means the connexion of thought supposed to run through every passage which constitutes by itself a whole. By some writers it is called the connexion. The immediate context is that which immediately precedes or follows a given word or sentence. The remote context is that which is less closely connected, and my embrace a whole paragraph or section. The scope, on the other hand, is the end or purpose which the writer has in view. Every author is supposed to have some object in writing, and that object will be either formally stated in some part of his work, or else apparent from the general course of thought. The plan of a work is the arrangement of its several parts; the order of thought which the writer pursues.

    The context, scope, and plan of a writing should, therefore, be studied together; and, logically, perhaps, the scope should be first ascertained. For the meaning of particular parts of a book may be fully apprehended only when we have mastered the general purpose and design of the whole. The plan of a book, moreover, is most intimately related to its scope. The one cannot be fully apprehended without some knowledge of the other. Even where the scope is formally announced, an analysis of the plan will serve to make it more clear. A writer who has a well-defined plan in his mind will be likely to keep to that plan, and make all his narratives and particular arguments bear upon the main subject.’ Biblical Hermeneutics, pg. 108.
    And something in line with the latest posts:
    When a theologian assumes the standpoint of an ecclesiastical creed, and thence proceeds, with a polemic air, to search for single texts of Scripture favourable to himself and unfavourable to his opponent, he is more than likely to overdo the matter. His creed may be as true as the Bible itself, but his method is reprehensible.’ (Biblical Hermeneutics, pg. 69)
    And 2) I have Grudem's Systematic Theology. It's a great read! You don't realize how far you've read. It reads very well.

    Grace to you,

    OD
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    disciple:

    I certainly see how what I said could be confusing. I think Grudem shows the proper place of Biblical Theology. The problems come in when people scorn systematic theology and view Biblical Theology as the end product. I guess alot of it varies, as many things are given the label of Biblical Theology these days. Biblical Theology can and should be used, but is also subject to abuse just as Systematic Theology is especially when people believe the Bible does not contain a Biblical theology but Biblical theologies. I found the following article very helpful as well is explaining why systematic theology is necessary:
    http://www.geocities.com/the_theolog...stematics.html

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Here is a quote from Wayne Grudem:
    D. Written Scripture Is Our Final Authority

    It is important to realize that the final form in which Scripture remains authoritative is its written form. It was the words of God written on the tablets of stone that Moses deposited in the ark of the covenant. Later, God commanded Moses and subsequent prophets to write their words in a book. And it was written Scripture (graphé) that Paul said was “God-breathed” (2Tim. 3.16). Similarly, it is Paul’s writing that are “a command of the Lord” (1Cor. 14.37) and that could be classified with “the other scriptures” (2Peter 3.16).

    This is important because people sometimes (intentionally or unintentionally) attempt to substitute some other final standard than the written words of Scripture. For example, people will sometimes refer to “what Jesus really said” and claim that when we translate the Greek words of the Gospels back into the Aramaic language Jesus spoke, we can gain a better understanding of Jesus’ words than was given by the writers of the Gospels. In fact, it is sometimes said that this work of reconstructing Jesus’ words in Aramaic enables us to correct the erroneous translations made by the gospel authors.

    In other cases, people have claimed to know “what Paul really thought” even when that is different from the meaning of the words he wrote. Or they have spoken of “what Paul should have said if he had been consistent with the rest of his theology”. Similarly, others have spoken of “the church situation to which Matthew was writing” and have attempted to give normative force either to that situation or to the solution they think Matthew was attempting to bring about in that situation.

    In all of the instances we must admit that asking about the words or situations that lie “behind” the text of Scripture may at times be helpful to us in understanding what the text means. Nevertheless, our hypothetical reconstructions of these words or situations can never replace or compete with Scripture itself as the final authority, nor should we ever allow them to contradict or call into question the accuracy of any of the words of Scripture. We must continually remember that we have in the Bible God’s very words, and we must not try to “improve” on them in some way, for this cannot be done. Rather, we should seek to understand them and then trust them and obey them with our whole heart.

    Systematic Theology
    Grace to you,

    OD
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  5. #25
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    145
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    60 Posts

    Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology

    I purchased Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology a few years ago, and I enjoyed it immensely. It was my first book on theology and I devoured it completely in one month. I had never been so provoked to think and study the Scriptures in my life. I will forever be indebted to Mr. Grudem for writing such a clear and concise theology book that is great for beginners. He helped me escape the confusion of dispensationalism and arminianism that had messed up my mind. I don't agree with his understanding of the covenants and I disagree with his take on the charismatic gifts (he is a "third wave" charismatic!) - but he does an admirable job presenting opposing interpretations and viewpoints.

    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Dr. Gill?

    Hey Brandan, you almost had me fooled for a while...

    Well, I was going to "welcome fo the Forum" Dr. Gill type of post, but I guess it is not necessary now... Poor me!

    (he is a "third wave" charismatic!)
    I wonder what is the "first" and "second" wave?

    Or, perhaps the "third wave" is the one that nearly washed me out of the ministry...



    Blessings, Brandan!

    Milt, or should I say "Hanegraff, the Heresy Hunter"?
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  7. #27
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    145
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    60 Posts

    Re: Dr. Gill?

    Originally posted by GraceAmbassador
    Hey Brandan, you almost had me fooled for a while...

    Well, I was going to "welcome fo the Forum" Dr. Gill type of post, but I guess it is not necessary now... Poor me!
    Well I embrace the welcoming! I changed my alias from grebel to Dr. Gill because I just felt like it. I've admired John Gill for a while now and love his exposition of the entire Bible (including his book the Cause of God and Truth). I was torn between Bunyan, Gill, Grebel, and Hubmaier. In the end my decision came down to Bunyanite and Dr. Gill and GillMan. I think Charles' nick is pretty original with "Wild Boar" in reference to Luther hangin' out at the Wild Boar Inn.

    I wonder what is the "first" and "second" wave?

    Or, perhaps the "third wave" is the one that nearly washed me out of the ministry...
    From: http://old.mbconf.ca/mb/mbh3713/four.htm - "The expression comes from Peter Wagner of Fuller Seminary, who speaks of the Pentecostal renewal (in the early 20th century) as the first wave and the charismatic renewal (of the 1960s) as the second wave. The third wave describes those who hold that the proclamation of the gospel is ordinarily accompanied by "signs, wonders and miracles". In contrast to Pentecostals, however, Storms understands the baptism of the Spirit to happen at the beginning of the Christian life, when people are baptized into the body of Christ; later experiences may be called "fillings" or "empowerings" with the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the best-known representative of this "third wave" was John Wimber, leader of the Vineyard movement."

    Blessings, Brandan!

    Milt, or should I say "Hanegraff, the Heresy Hunter"?
    The church would do well to have more "heresy hunters". I know that's a dirty word in charismatic circles, but hey, they're asking for it!

    Blessings to you TOO BROTHER!

    P.S. I won't be online again until Sunday. Admins, please keep an extra close eye on the system. Thanks!
    This is my signature.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Hi Brandan!

    I am glad I could get in! It was not easy. Something with the server!

    I come home at lunch to catch "The Texas Justice" and stopped the hard drive on my dish receiver just to write and I could not get in. But here I am!

    The third wave

    Actually I found out that I was indeed familiar with such a term. I have the "Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements" - Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B MacGee, by Zondervan - and I believe the term is in there. (Talk about a bunch of heretics put together!)

    The church would do well to have more "heresy hunters". I know that's a dirty word in charismatic circles, but hey, they're asking for it!
    That's how I am labeled by some charismatics now: A Heresy Hunter! Well... but again, the Reformed tell me that if I am a heretic hunter, then I should shoot myself. I can only wonder what they mean...

    Storms understands the baptism of the Spirit to happen at the beginning of the Christian life, when people are baptized into the body of Christ; later experiences may be called "fillings" or "empowerings" with the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the best-known representative of this "third wave" was John Wimber, leader of the Vineyard movement."
    On that, I am closer to Storms... but then again, it may be only the Storms... before the lull. Actually, in the beginning of my ministry, at 17 (I preach since I was 13), I prayed to God that instead of being on someone else's theological coat tail, that He would give me ability to develop something biblical enough for everybody else to hang their coats on. So far I only have my own hanging on that one, but I cannot say that I am a "sticker" for anyone of the thinkers we know today or in the past.

    My favorite oxymorom is the one I attribute to myself: "I am a slave to my own freedom". I love these past writers and have a great degree of respect for the way they label their own "theologies", but I prefer to think that if something is not broken perhaps it needs to be, "not to fix something because it does not appear to be broken", is too passive for me. So I go around questioning even my own conclusions...

    As I said before, I take, assume and welcome the label "charismatic" because there is no way that the Calvinist will not label me a charismatic, regardless of what I say to prove them otherwise. But on the other hand... the charismatic will label me a Calvinist... What to do? Am I wrong in both ends? Someone, please call my therapist!

    Well, this post will have no value for our discussion, so I better shut up... I only have a few minutes to finish Texas Justice with judge Larry Joe before my next appointment... (Pushing "play")

    I will keep an eye on your server for you brother!

    P.S. I won't be online again until Sunday. Admins, please keep an extra close eye on the system. Thanks!
    Whatever you do, Brandan, let it prosper with true Biblical prosperity, according to Ps. 1, Joshua 1, and especially 2 Cor 9 vs. 8 and as you finish it, may the heavenly "Well done, my faithful servant" echo in your spirit as the Witness of the Holy Spirit that you are in the center of God's will! See you in a few days!

    Blessings to all!

    Milt[
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    32
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by GraceAmbassador
    My favorite oxymorom is the one I attribute to myself: "I am a slave to my own freedom". [/B]
    That is close to one of my favorite quotes. Bill Sasser was the first I heard say it:

    "I can resist anything but temptation"




    Anyway, to bring this back to my original reason for writing:
    I read Gary Long's article on New Covenant Non-Premillennialism, I liked most of what he had to say and I am glad that someone is trying to make a distinctive New Covenant view.

    I actually reconsidered a great deal about what I was going to write because I reread the 5 maxims carefully and found that I agree much more than I originally thought. But I still had a lot of problem with maxim 4.

    This is why I started the thread in eschatology.

    I was also riled up a bit by sitting in on some teaching on Mark 11-13. These are some quotes from the teacher. I haven't listened to the tape to check the accuracy of my notes, but my memory is generally good and I took notes about the important bits. These are not exact quotes, but just the general sense of the message.

    "apocolyptic literature has its own rules, it is not sequential, but 'snapshots'"

    "Jesus' return is public (meaning everyone will know it), therefore He couldn't have come back because I don't believe it"

    "you (throughout chapter 13) is obviously the disciples" but in Mark 13:26 he said that the only way to understand "they" was to refer to Matt 24 and have it mean "all the tribes of the earth"

    [speaking of Mark 13:24-27] "we know that Jesus didn't come back because these things (the astronomical events) haven't happened" and then a little later "most commentators point out that the sun and moon and stars language is metaphorical, but I'm not quite convinced, I know that the Old Testament uses the exact same language, I mean it is in Isaiah 13 plain as day, but I am not sure"

    And then the biggie "All except the MAJOR PROPHECY were fulfilled "[in 70ad]


    So back to hermeneutics, 2 questions about Maxim 4.


    1) Does the New Covenant Age ever end?

    2) If the cross was the the fullfilment and end of the Old Covenant, why is there so much about it growing old and or still being in force in the New Testament Scriptures?
    Moderation in all things, especially moderation.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by stauron
    1) Does the New Covenant Age ever end?
    depending on what you mean by "New Covenant Age," no. not that i can see from Scripture. it is the consummation, fulfillment, and culmination of all the previous covenants in Scripture.

    the assumption here though is that the New Covenant is an "age" or is referred to as an "age" in Scripture. also the assumption here is that there was no figure of speech (e.g., "end of the age") which would have triggered in their minds an idea of "THE final day of judgment" for all nations (i.e., "the end of the world as we know it" or "the end of the carnal or created or physical order of things as we know it"). regarding this, g.b. caird has much to say:

    "Language and Imagery of the Bible", G.B. Caird, pp. 256-260

    1. The biblical writers believed literally that the world had had a beginning in the past and would have an end in the future

    2. They regularly used end-of-the-world language metaphorically to refer to that which they well knew was not the end of the world.

    3. As with all other uses of metaphor, we have to allow for the likelihood of some literalist misinterpretation on the part of the hearer, and for the possibility of some blurring of the edges between vehicle and tenor on the part of the speaker.

    Proposition 1 is easily established for the OT. It is implied in such phrases as 'until the moon is no more' (Ps. 72:7) and in the ancient promise to Noah (Gen 8:22). In some passages it is explicitly stated (Ps 102:25-26; Isa 51:6, 54:10)...

    Our first problem arises when we try to decide whether the expressions 'the latter end of the days' (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 4:30, 31:29; Hos 3:5; Isa 2:2; Jer 23:20, 30:24, 48:47, 49:39; Ez 38:16; Dan 2:28, 10:14) and 'the day of the Lord' (Amos 5:18, 20; Isa 2:12, 13:6, 9; Zeph 1:7, 14; Jer 46:10; Ez 13:5, 30:3; Obad 15; Zech 14:1; Mal 4:5; Joel 1:15, 2:1, 11, 31, 3:14) are eschatological in this plenary sense. For the first of these phrases the Hebrew dictionary of Brown, Driver and Briggs gives the following definition: 'a prophetic phrase denoting the final period of the history so far as the speaker's perspective reaches.' It is thus the equivalent of the English expressions 'in the end' or 'ultimately' when we use them to mean 'sooner or later' or 'in the future'; and it has precisely that vagueness which makes for the blurring of the edges mentinoed in Preposition 3. The origins of the phrase 'the day of the Lord' are as yet obscure and conjectural. When it is first used in the eighth century B.C. by Amos, it clearly has a long history behind it. His contemporaries who long for it regard it as a day of Yahweh's victory in which they will share, and Amos warns them that it will be Yahweh's victory over them. What is not in doubt is that the day came to be described in terms of cosmic disaster, as the return of primaeval chaso, and so by imaginative elision to be seen as the end of the world.

    In thirteen of the eighteen instances of its occurrence, the day of the Lord is said to be either imminent or present. It is here that Preposition 2 comes to our aid. For when we examine the contexts, we find that in one case the referent is the overthrow of Babylon, in another the annihilation of Edom, in another the ravaging of Judah by a plague of locuts...The day was his victory, when he would come decisively for salvation and judgment, and they were inviting their hearers to see that day in the current crisis. In other words they were using the term as a metaphor...

    The book of Joel provides an interesting study in what we might call prophetic camera technique. The book opens with some close-up shots of a locust swarm overrunning the countryside. Then the scene changes to the temple, where priests and elders are instructed to proclaim a national fast in recognition that the calamity is God's judgment (Joel 1:15). The prophet says that he day is 'near', because that is the traditional word to use about the day of the Lord, but whe he means by it is that it has arrived. Any possible doubt about this is rapidly dispelled (Joel 2:1-2).

    But this local manifestation of God's judgment has the power to call the nation to repentance because it is seen as an anticipation and embodiment of the universal judgment to come. So the foreground scene fades into a telephoto panorama of all natoins gathered in the Valley of the Lord's Judgment (Joel 3:14).

    Few would hesitate to call this an eschatological vision, yet it is not the end: the effect of this judgment is not to determine the destiny of individuals in some after-life, but to 'reverse the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem' (3:1), so that afterwards 'there shall be people living in Judah forever, in Jerusalem generation after generation.' (3:21)

    Thus the nearness of the day is given both a short range and a long range application, and it is of some significance for the interpretation of Mark 1:15 that in the short range 'is near' is synonymous with 'has arrived'.(Lam 4:18) On the other hand the long range vision is introduced by two quite vague indications of time, 'a day will come' (2:28) and 'when that time comes' (3:1), so that the proclamation that the day has now arrived for the multitudes of all nations tells us nothing whatever about its date.
    there's a bunch more quotes here:

    also the assumption is that "age" can only apply to two things in Scripture--the Old Covenant and New Covenant (that "age" refers to or is used for nothing else). i don't know that this can be proven or borne out from the Scripture. the term "age" doesn't seem to have this limited nuance in Scripture. if we were to assign the term "age" to both these covenants it would not mean that "end of the age" triggered in the NT audience's minds "end of the/a covenant" or that "age" couldn't refer to anything else. in other words, according to the quote above, simply because end-of-the-world/age language is applied to the close of the Old Covenant it does not necessarily follow that there is no future end-of-the-world or that there isn't something else. it's not like you cannot have both. to me it seems that if we are to take the end-of-the-world language as applied to the end of the Old Covenant as the literal or final end then we still have a problem as what to do with the end-of-the-world language in the OT.

    from my reading, it seems to refer to the final judgment of all nations/individuals, the end of this created order of things, and the barrier between this world and the next (thought i am quite flexible with what this might mean or look like). i'm not convinced that the "end of the age" and all that goes with this phrase (e.g., astronomical events) is merely or only spiritual language (although it is at least that) to speak of the end of a spiritual covenant.

    2) If the cross was the the fullfilment and end of the Old Covenant, why is there so much about it growing old and or still being in force in the New Testament Scriptures?
    because the administration of the Old Covenant hadn't actually fully ended yet (i.e., it was still being practiced/administered though it was effectively and practically ended for the New Covenant participant). the temple was still standing, Jews confronted with the gospel were still torn between the Old Covenant temple and the New Covenant EKKLHSIA, the types and the anti-types stood side-by-side for a time, etc. i'm not sure what the problem here is though.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Another interesting quote from Caird

    There is one further way in which our study of the Septuagint may throw some light on the New Testament. In Luke 19:41-44 and 21:20-24 the evangelist has placed on the lips of Jesus two prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem, which are couched in such pictureesque detail that they used to be thought vatincinia ex eventu, i.e. prophecies compiled after and with knowledge of the event. But C.H. Dodd demonstrated that the siege as it is described in these passages does not follow the course of the actual siege in the war of A.D. 66-70, as it is described in the writings of Josephus, and that the prophecies are built up out of a cento of phrases drawn from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. ('The fall of Jerusalem and the "abomination of desolation"', Journal of Roman Studies xxxvii (1947), pp. 47-54, reprinted in More New Testament Studies.) The implication of this appears to be that the Lucan prophecies were earlier than A.D. 70 in origin, but could not be attributed to Jesus, since he would not have used the Septuagint. But with the example of Ecclesiasticus before us we may envisage another posibility. Jesus could have compiled his prophecies in Hebrew or Aramaic, making deliberate use of echoes from the Old Testament, and the translator who put his words into Greek could, like ben Sira's grandson, have recognised the Old Testament allusions and turned to the corresponding passages of the Septuagint in order to make them clear to his Greek readers. [Septuagint, pg. 128]
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Hermie and Dr. Gill closed post 12/3/03

    Friends,

    Reading the posts on Dr. Gills "What eschatological doctrine do you agree with?" I am thoroughly confused about all the different ways to interpret the end times? God is not a schizo-maniac. He didn't create us to be either. Why in our theology do we have so many ways to come up with the views of the end times? If I wasn't a strong christian right now, I would lose hope and despair that God is not faithful and good and he isn't coming back for me or you or my sister or my wife or whoever else.

    Why is our hermie-nuetics so messed up? Why is there 7 views of the end times?
    Grace and Peace to you,

    Paul Schafer

  13. #33
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    145
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    60 Posts

    Re: Hermie and Dr. Gill closed post 12/3/03

    Originally posted by paulschafer
    Why in our theology do we have so many ways to come up with the views of the end times?
    Because of the sinfulness of men. Period.
    This is my signature.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    paulschafer:

    The short answer is our sinful nature. The long answer is that people interpret prophetic passages in a way different from what the Bible does.

    The present popularity of the dispensational movement is due in large part to reactions against those who deny the concrete truths of the Bible (resurrection, virgin birth, etc.). They seek to be more literal in their interpretation of prophetic passages, but in doing so they have to ignore other passages of the Bible. Paul tells us who Israel is and say that all who believe are the true Israel and heirs of the promise given to Abraham. The dispensationalist ignores this and looks for an earthly kingdom, also ignoring the teachings of Jesus. They are making the same mistake the people did on Palm Sunday, only they have less of an excuse since we have the full cannon of Scripture.

    The preterist relies heavily upon Josephus and other external sources. He ignores the double-fulfillments of prophecy found throughout the Scriptures and is more concerned about 'initial audience'.

    The amillennial position is the only one that really interprets prophecy in the manner in which Scripture does.

    If you would like to read further on this there's a rather recent book written on the popular level called "A Case For Amillennialism" by Kim Riddlebarger. I disagree with him on his interpretation of Rom. 11:26 but he provides excellent summaries of what is wrong with the other systems. In some ways "The Bible and the Future" by Anthony Hoekema is even better but it's not as easy of a read and he doesn't really deal with preterism.

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  15. #35
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    145
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    60 Posts
    I would agree that amillennialism seems the way to go. Historicism is attractive also. Another book I would recommend is one I'm going through now called "Triumph of the Lamb" by Dennis Johnson. Ray Summers wrote an excellent commentary also called "Worthy is the Lamb".
    This is my signature.

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Re: Hermie and Dr. Gill closed post 12/3/03

    Originally posted by Dr. Gill
    Because of the sinfulness of men. Period.
    but the problem here is that everyone thinks that it is the sinfulness of the other guy. in other words, because of our own sinfulness, we think that while the reason is because of man's sinfulness that obviously our own eschatology must be correct and therefore it necessarily excludes us. said yet another way, everyone doesn't agree with my eschatology (or any other view) because of man's sinfulness. i'm not saying that you're saying this brandan, just that this is often our approach to the matter. we all think that we've got it all figured out and that if everyone else wasn't so sinful (even though we'd never say this), then they'd see things our way. we are much more ready to view others as ignorant or stubborn rather than ourselves. i'm learning more and more about my sinfulness in this regard. i'm very thankful that God is forgiving of our pride and misplaced zeal.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  17. #37
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    145
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    60 Posts

    Re: Re: Re: Hermie and Dr. Gill closed post 12/3/03

    Originally posted by disciple
    but the problem here is that everyone thinks that it is the sinfulness of the other guy. in other words, because of our own sinfulness, we think that while the reason is because of man's sinfulness that obviously our own eschatology must be correct and therefore it necessarily excludes us. said yet another way, everyone doesn't agree with my eschatology (or any other view) because of man's sinfulness. i'm not saying that you're saying this brandan, just that this is often our approach to the matter. we all think that we've got it all figured out and that if everyone else wasn't so sinful (even though we'd never say this), then they'd see things our way. we are much more ready to view others as ignorant or stubborn rather than ourselves. i'm learning and more my sinfulness in this regard. i'm very thankful that God is forgiving of our pride and misplaced zeal.
    Agreed. I am not presumptuous to think I have it all figured out, nor would any who hold to premill, postmill, historicism, or other interpretation either. (well maybe some would lol)
    This is my signature.

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    hermie laws

    You'all,

    Can there ever be an agreement while we are still on earth or do we wait for Jesus to come back or us croak to find unity in our doctrines and with each other?

    What is define as "sound doctrine" in Paul's pastoral epistles?
    Is it a fairy tale to assume we can achieve sound doctrine when invisible church is so divided?
    Grace and Peace to you,

    Paul Schafer

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    hermie laws and eschotology

    Charles and you'all,

    I've grown up in the last 11 years in pre-mill churches, whether pre or post trib, why do you consider Amill a better view than pre-mill? Who authored such doctrines of Amill or preteriest? Is it John Nelson Darby's nephew?
    Grace and Peace to you,

    Paul Schafer

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: hermie laws

    Originally posted by paulschafer
    Can there ever be an agreement while we are still on earth or do we wait for Jesus to come back or us croak to find unity in our doctrines and with each other?

    What is define as "sound doctrine" in Paul's pastoral epistles?
    Is it a fairy tale to assume we can achieve sound doctrine when invisible church is so divided?
    honestly, i don't know if complete agreement on every jot and tittle is the point. now before people yell "heretic!", let me qualify that: there are certain essentials or minimums that i think we all need to agree on. but eschatology is definitely not one of them. i don't think there was even complete unity on all doctrine and practice in the NT churches. if you just look at each epistle that was written to combat a particular false teaching, address a particular situation or occasion, i get the impression that there was a range of different beliefs, teachings, and practices. and they even had the aposltes. also very early on in the church there seems to be suggestions that it was ok that there were different eschatologies and that was OK. this is illustrated by this quote from Justin Martyr:

    I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
    How Could Everyone Be So Wrong...

    the reason that i don't think complete unity is necessary is because this is the environment that God teaches us to look past ourselves and our own interests and convictions and consider others as better than ourselves. if everyone looked exactly alike and never disagreed, then what would that look like? what kind of growth and humility could result? i think what we all need is a good dose of humility, especially in the area of eschatology (since the majority of what is see go on is speculation--a handful of verses with a lot of assumptions and logical deductions).
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Problem of Evil
    By wildboar in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-21-05, 09:36 PM
  2. "Good Works" and the reprobate
    By John 6-37 in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-10-05, 09:27 PM
  3. Warren's Delusional Theology
    By BBNewton in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-10-04, 05:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •